Talk:European Union legislative procedure
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the European Union legislative procedure article.|
|European Union legislative procedure was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|WikiProject European Union||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 Rated
- 3 update
- 4 Lisbon repealed ex Article 252 (cooperation procedure)
- 5 The Commission and the "chambers" of the EU legislature
- 6 ‘Chambers’ II: Delors and Thatcher’s No! No! No!
- 7 'Community method' redirect
- 8 List of policy areas with their corresponding legislative process
- 9 Requested move
Had a little mishap as I was adding the EU Legislation template, but it seems Ok now.
--Drdan 11:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Nominate for Good Article Candidate as I feel it meets the threshold (see: WP:GA?):
- 1. It is well written: Yes.
- 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable: Yes.
- 3. It is broad in its coverage: Yes.
- 4. It follows the neutral point of view policy: Yes.
- 5. It is stable: Yes.
- 6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic: No, not sure if an image is needed for this article in particular.
- I beg your pardon if I've acted in haste, please modify the appropriate tags as is neccessary. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 12:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't worry about the images so much, as I tend to agree. How can you illustrate the co-decision procedure? With that said though, the opening statement of the article is awkward. It immediately discusses terms that have not been covered yet and would be confusing to those who have no idea what the co-decision procedure is. The opening should be more of a general overview of what we're about to read, like a thesis-statement, but more generalised for an Encyclopedia. For assistance with this, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style.
Otherwise, the meat of the article is written well and is accurate. Though, where did all this knowledge come from? I know this stuff of the top of my head, but it must be cited on Wikipedia. There's many places to get this information from and to cite it, such as the Europa.eu site.
So at this point the article would fail the criteria for a "good article" (WP:WIAGA). Though, I will put it on-hold, as I believe a week is plenty of time for editors to cite the information in this article properly. The article will fail though if citations are not added. Further, the opening needs tweaked. For help with sources, see Wikipedia:Citing_sources. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
It's been the maximum seven days that an article can be put "on hold" during a GA review. Unfortunately the citation issue has not been resolved. If proper citations are added in the future, there's no reason not to resubmit this article for review as it would likely pass without any debate. I'd cite it myself, but I haven't the time right now. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the references tag is a bit harsh. There are a hell of a lot of worse pages on Wikipedia! The source is and always was Craig, Paul, and De Burca, Grainne, EU law: text, cases, and materials (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). I can't remember the page or chapter numbers and I don't have a copy to hand anymore. The facts can also be confirmed by reading the treaty itself. Caveat lector 18:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
as the article needs updating anyway (can we find out which ones apply to which areas? I can't see anything that says) can I suggest this style?: link removed as work now applied J.Logan`t: 08:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Full update and move completed as no one objected. If people do now object, please don't move back immediately before discussion as moving things back and fourth gets messy then we have to get admins in etc etc. So if we move it again, please lets be sure. Happy to reconsider my edit here of course though.- J.Logan`t: 21:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh and by the way, I removed the lists of where they apply as they are out of date with Lisbon. If we can get a good source listing all those areas not covered by ordinary, that would be great.- J.Logan`t: 21:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Lisbon repealed ex Article 252 (cooperation procedure)
I had not noticed that the Treaty of Lisbon repealed the ex Article 252 TEC cooperation procedure. Now the ordinary legislative procedure is in Article 294 TFEC, corresponding to ex Article 251 TEC. – Kaihsu (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The Commission and the "chambers" of the EU legislature
The Commission play a hugely important role in the EU's legal legislative process as the sole initiators or legislation. If they did not have this power, the larger member states could propose and go on to adopt legislation leaving the Commission on the side lines. This is why Craig and de Burca say that the Commission "plays a central part in the legislative process of the Community" (p. 59, 3rd edition). They continue:
- "The right of initiative [the Commission] at the forefront of of the development of policy. Although legislative proposals have to be approved by the Council and, in most circumstances, by the European Parliament, the Commission's right of initiative has enabled it to act as the 'motor of integration' for the Community as a whole." (p. 60)
And as far describing the Council and Parliament as "chambers", it just strikes me as trying to fit the EU's round plug into the square hole of national systems. And perhaps more importantly as either a WP:OR or WP:FRINGE theory which does not correspond with either the references or terminology used by the media or in academia. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Initiating legislation does not really make you part of the legislature, if it did then the US President is part of the legislature. So much for separation of powers. The only other remaining role under OLP is influencing Council voting weights: that is minor. Yes under other procedures the Commission has a bigger role but they are now less than a handful and it would be misleading - in the overall structure - to present it as anything but. The exact facts as to the other procedures are laid out further down but by presenting in structure and lead in the way you propose makes the Commission out to be equal to Parliament and Council - a falsehood 99/100 of the time now.
- Second on "chambers". Yes the EU is more complicated but that doesn't mean we can't use any established words. There is nothing different between a national chamber and the case of the EU. They are institutions which amend laws, passing it between them until they are both in agreement. This term is applicable and it would help people to understand and, unlike a lot of other terms, it is hardly a controversial point like the F-word. If we keep throwing these terms out the window because the EU is a bit different - and yes you can pick holes but stand back and look at it and it works in pretty much the same way - then we fail to get information across. We just end up with article after article saying that the EU is different and weird. Saying what it isn't does not help, we need to say what it is and the Parliament and Council are chambers. (and I do believe I've heard some MEPs referring to them as such). To be honest I'm slightly bemused that you think this falls under OR, what on earth am I supposed to have researched here?- J.Logan`t: 18:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- In the US any member of congress or senator can initiate legislation. The problem here is that the EU doesn't really have a legislature, so what we have is an article on the legislative process and the various players involved. In this the Commission's role is important. Legislation cannot be adopted unless it was originally proposed by the Commission. The Commission sits in on the conciliation committee and the Commission can withdraw or alter bills at any time before their adoption. I think all this adds up to a significant player.
- I don't think we should use the word chambers for much the same reason that we don't use the words federal and confederal: they are terms normally used to discuss the EU institutions. Many people seek reform of the EU a bicameral parliament and a separation of powers, but this is not what exists at present. In short using the term chamber implies that there is an EU legislature when there isn't. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Come on, sitting on the conciliation committee is no where close actually voting, amending, reporting etc. on draft law. You could say the Commission is a major player compared to the Court of Auditors, but on the scale here we only have four bodies o relatively speaking it is Council and Parliament as the big players, then the Commission and national parliaments as supporting acts to them. That does not mean the Commission has nothing to do, it is just relative power between them.
- And back to chambers, I really don't think legislative initiative is a defining quality of the word "chamber", particularly as the Commission is very much at the service of Parliament and Council when it comes to initiating legislation while that initiative in westminster systems is rarely carried through. Could you perhaps give some kind of evidence to support the idea that an vital part of being a "chamber" is having the direct power to initiate law? I'd argue the other way;
- Every body that makes law would have a legislature by definition. Its composition would vary but it would be there as that is the area that makes law. In the US it is clearly defined as Congress. The executive is the US President. For the UK, it is Parliament and the executive is the cabinet. Now the line in the second case is blurred but there is still the division and the fact that the US President is not listed as part of the legislature, despite having the power to initiate legislation. Ergo, the lack of this power for the Council and Parliament does not disqualify it from being the legislature and hence, chambers of the legislature.- J.Logan`t: 09:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
How are the latest proposals? Also on a side note, where do you think the European Council stands in all this? I'm thinking of the Council deferring contentious legislation to it. What exactly are the grounds for that as it doesn't seem to fit with OLP.- J.Logan`t: 19:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's better. Is the Luxembourg compromise still used that much? I'll really need to get my hands on the next edition of Craig and de Burca in order to get to grips with Lisbon. We might also think about including the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Both of them could probably be listed along with the National Parliaments as consultative bodies. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think we should mention the committees, they have no power to amend, veto or anything really. They just give an opinion, that isn't very legislative. More like a special advisor vs a cabinet member perhaps? Needless detail, at most they'd be in a small section at the bottom that the comment, but not along side Parliaments and to be honest if we include the committees then why not a section on lobbying. Yes it is relevant, but a bit off topic?- J.Logan`t: 18:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Not so long ago the only power of the European Parliament was being consulted much like the committees are now. And the main role of the national parliaments is, in reality to be consulted. Their ability to raise a yellow card being essentially theoretical, no? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, but in the 1950s you wouldn't have classified it as part of the legislature as you would now because it was only consultative. It would have the same limited standing as the nationals, the committees or what-not. That is why I am excluding the committees now, in the future if they got power then they'd be a noteworthy part of the process. Besides, even early on parliament had some decent delaying/amending/veto power in certain areas - the committees have nothing.
- As for the yellow and orange card, it is theoretical but that is a de jure power. Logistics get in the way of them using it, but the early Parliament also had problems. The fact it has a formal power under Lisbon now gives it some standing. There is also appetite for this power to be applied as well, unlike the EESC which is overdue for being put down.- J.Logan`t: 22:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
‘Chambers’ II: Delors and Thatcher’s No! No! No!
The ‘chambers’ talk perhaps can be traced to Jacques Delors via Margaret Thatcher: ‘The President of the Commission, M. Delors, said at a press conference the other day that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the Community, he wanted the Commission to be the Executive and he wanted the Council of Ministers to be the Senate. No. No. No.’ – Margaret Thatcher, Debate in the House of Commons (30 October, 1990) – Kaihsu (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
'Community method' redirect
Community method redirects here, but the term is nowhere explained or even used in the article. As it's more of a framework than a process (as least as I understand the term), should it go in between the current sections 2 & 3, as a way to contextualize the various legislative modes available to the EU? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Menace3society (talk • contribs) 14:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)